U.S. Congress - H.R.2454 American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009
H.R.2454 - American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. view all titles (12)
All Bill Titles
- Official: To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. as introduced.
- Short: American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Short: Safe Climate Act as introduced.
- Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as reported to house.
- Short: Safe Climate Act as passed house.
- Short: Safe Climate Act as reported to house.
- Short: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: GREEN Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 as passed house.
- Short: National Climate Service Act of 2009 as passed house.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 91-120 of 724 total comments.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
You’re classic. “Moran.” How come it’s “climate change” now? I thought it was global warming just a few years ago. I guess now humans are causing recent cooling, not the Sun. It’s all very scientific isn’t it. Anyway, everyone can see that it is being used to concentrate control in government and globalist hands.
right on – a Child can tell you these – it is a big scam all for big big big $$$$$$$$$$$!
Yep!! I’m no expert but I remember learning about the ICE AGE. And in the past several months I saw a opb special on the Steens Mountain range in southeastern Oregon. Scientists have concluded from studying the range that several times in history the poles have changed. HMMMM!!! Who is responsible for that? I believe we shouldn’t be wreckless with the environment, but to believe we’re responsible for global warming?? I wish we could all be around in a couple of hundred years to rub Gores face in it and see what he says…oh, he’ll take responsibility for preventing further warming…lets VOTE THEM ALL OUT!! We deserve what we get for keeping them in office…
Even if “climate change” were real, how is taxing the crap out of us going to stop it?
IT’S A SCAM!
Amen
This bill will kill our already crippled economy, tax the consumer TO DEATH, and it will do nothing to help the environment. If the democrats pass this thing, they are going to get their butts handed to them in 2010.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
CO2 levels have no measurable effect on the Earth’s temperature.
Updates to measurements and models now show a .7 degree rise over the last 100 years. That is less than the average over the last 300 years. CO2 levels are at or near some of their highest recorded levels over that same time span. If the amount of CO2 had anything to do with warming, we would be in the middle of a global heat wave by now. We are not. Some reliable predictions have us cooling over the course of the next 50 years or so. If the science were settled, then there wouldn’t be so much decent from PHDs around the world.
Very well said, I am in total agreement.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Try this: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Filtered Comment [ show ]
CO2 has little effect. I don’t think they said it has no effect. They said no measurable effect. that is when the Earth’s temperature fluctuates over 300 years and the rise in the past few years is within the fluctuation amount. As for your statement on global cooling, in the 70s the creation of earth day was because they thought another ice age was coming. I guess now that this movement is contrary to your thoughts you oppose it.
There’s this thing called the internet, where you can read all sorts of interesting studies, facts and theories about so-called global warming/climate change. I would go to google.com and try doing a little research yourself. There are plenty of scientists who de-cry the THEORY of man-made global warming. I learned about scientific theory in my seventh-grade science class, and if I remember correctly, a theory is not the same as a fact.
I believe NASA has also reported a drop in tempurature over the last decade. There are also reports that the polar ice caps, while receding in some areas, have actually increased greatly in other areas. Also, there appears to be significant correllation between sun-spot activity and the earth’s core tempurature.
Man-made global warming is nothing more than a theory which has become the new religion, and the televangelists (i.e. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi) are making a whole lot of money with their fire-and-brimstone preaching.
Did you know that gravity is a theory?
Precisely. There is no ‘fact’ in scientific process; only pragmatic realities.
And the pragmatic reality is that we are killing the ecosystem and our own wallets at the same time.
Have you climate change deniers ever thought of yourselves as the neo-opposition that Galileo once faced? Think about how the history books will be written, and which side you want to be on.
Again, I haven’t seen enough evidence that this is a ‘pragmatic reality’. I think most climate change deniers (myself included) think of ourselves more as Galileo, realizing that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around us, or that our activities actually can change the earth’s core temperature, and the global warming alarmists still think the world is flat despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Does the earth’s core temperature change? It appears that it does, but not necessarily because of man’s activity. Should we be spewing harmful gases into the air without a care in the world? Well, no, probably not. Who wants to live in smoggy cities? Of course we should take care of the environment, of course we should conserve our natural resources, but something as drastic as this bill is hardly the solution.
Of course, but the theory was originally hypothesized in the late 16th century, and in the 300+ years since then, the scientific evidence against it is not enough to convince me that it may be false. Weather patterns and CO2 emissions, on the other hand, have not been measured with accuracy until the last hundred years or so. I have not yet seen enough evidence to convince me that man-made global warming is, indeed, a viable theory. In fact, there is an equal amount of evidence to indicate otherwise.
Yes, I’m sure you are an idiot. Maybe you meant Newton’s Law of Gravity with an emphases on LAW? Maybe you were busy spreading lies and nonsense on the internet? We will never know!
Actually, gravity is a “law”. Hence the name, “Newton’s Law of Gravity”.
I think the question is more about ‘the mechanism’ vs. ‘the effect’.
Newton’s Law is about the predictable effects of gravity. Scientists are still in the dark as to the ontology of gravity, i.e. what it actually is and how it works (the mechanism).
Again, his law is pragmatic, and describes the effects of an yet to be understood force on solid objects; it is not some eternal truth.
It’s extremely likely our understanding of gravity will deepen and change over time. The development of quantum physics is a good example of this and how it transcends yet includes Newtonian physics.
Just as our knowledge of ecology and environmental science will increase over time; I’m sure we will look back and wonder why we waited so long to act. It’s called progress. It’s not that scary.
You like hearing the sound of your own voice don’t you? You must since Newton’s Law of Gravity is as it says a LAW. The Laws of Thermodynamics are also the LAW. Not concepts or theories but actual LAWS of science. The Theory of Relativity remains a theory since for instance we are pretty sure there are black holes but due to how they function we can’t see them but we believe that the effects caused by them can be recorded. Till this and other aspects are proven this will remain a theory. Clearly there are numerous people here that don’t know what they are talking about or are intent on spreading misinformation. You sound like one of them. VATaxes and home inspections will not stop or start anything except the transition from a Constitutional Republic into Communism! Paying additional taxes because you own a dog will not solve problems but instead create millions of pissed off Citizens that in the end might revolt!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
Something a little more mainstream maybe.
Very well said indeed. Here’s more detailed information if anyone is interested: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
One small correction – I think you meant to say “dissent”, not “decent”, in the last sentence ;).
Even if C-O2 had any significant relevance to pollution, the data shows that any warming is so minuscule, that the global averages could virtually change in the matter of a couple of years. And while I like the ideas of conservation, I think incentives should be given only for innovation, but don’t penalize someone for merely using an old working system.
A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. “respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”) agree that human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
(Posted on Wikipedia with citations)
Anyone watching this crazy markup? Money is flying out the door, just passed a 100 million dollar a year funding for universities.